Read the forum code of contact
By: - 27th December 2012 at 23:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Technically there already are single engined airliners. The Pilatus PC-12 is fully certified for commercially scheduled operations. It is used amongst other places in the USA. Probably not quite what you were looking for, but still.
By: - 28th December 2012 at 01:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The PC-12 is a really nice aircraft to fly in. More space than you might think when seen from the outside. Hope this link works, as I am posting from a Windows phone...
By: - 28th December 2012 at 02:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the 1920s there were a number of single engined airliners. Swissair used them. I believe the US early postal/passenger airlines also used single engined airliners. Nothing is new! Back then having a twin engined airliner didn't give redundancy safety as the engines were so underpowered. Loosing an engine just caused yaw which caused form drag and the aeroplane would barely maintain altitude on one motor. So one or two engines, the outcome was often a forced landing in a field. Which worked well for a tail-dragger with huge main wheels. Not so possible these days with the small wheeled and a nose-wheel design.
The Cessna Caravan could be considered another modern single-engined 'airliner'.
By: - 28th December 2012 at 06:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just read your post again, and thinking of single engine jet aircraft, in the pipeline is the Diamond D-Jet (Diamond Aircraft Industries). SwiftJet have ordered a few of them, but full tests have only been completed earlier this year after funding problems which are now sorted by a private funder. It is only a small aircraft but that's always going to be the case with single engined aircraft.
It is powered by a Williams FJ33-5A turbofan.
By: - 28th December 2012 at 12:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is only a small aircraft but that's always going to be the case with single engined aircraft.
I'm sure people were saying the same thing about twin-jets 30 years ago. But we now have the 77W which carries just as many passengers as the guad-jet 747.
Aeronautical engineering is advancing at an unprecedented rate, so much so that the technology in the aircraft delivered to airlines as little as ten years ago is fast becoming obsolete. At the logistics airport in California, there are row upon row of 8/9 year old 757s and 767s collecting dust and never to be flown again.
I wouldn't say there will never be a single jet passenger aircraft capable of carrying 100+ passengers - we just have to wait for engine performance and reliability to catch up. (Maybe another 30-40 years?)
By: - 28th December 2012 at 12:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You cannot compare transition from quad jets to twin jets to transition from twin jet to solo jet. Events where airliners loose one engine are not that rare of an event today, but we don't hear about them because presence of a second engine makes that a non-event. Remove the second engine and non-event becomes a catastrophic event.
Edit: To add quickly, I think I've read some article claiming that internationally there is around 20-30 in-flight engine failures per year. If you would go from twin to single engine, that would be 20-30 disasters per year instead of just emergency landings.
By: - 28th December 2012 at 12:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which is why I said engine reliability would have to catch up first... 20-30 might sound like a lot, but compare that to 150-200 a year 40 years ago.
As the topic starter suggests, the engine could be mounted above the fuselage or in the tail (similar to most tri-engined aircraft). This would mean there are very few obstructions below the wing making the fuselage almost like the hull of a ship. If the aircraft were to lose power over water, it could simply glide down and land similar to any sea-plane...
Ok, I'm being very simplistic, but I'm sure manufacturers could come up with solutions. We just have to wait for fuel to reach such a price that it's worth spending the billions in design.
I'll end with a quote from good old wikipedia, it's interesting to see how things have changed.
"Due to the unreliability of piston engines at the time, long-distance flight using twin engines was considered very risky. More than two engines were seen as a must for flight over long distances and inhospitable terrain, or over the ocean."
By: - 2nd January 2013 at 17:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What an interesting prospect. I suppose a single-engine airliner would look a little like a B727 without the two side-mounted rear engines.
By: - 2nd January 2013 at 17:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only problem I can see with one in the tail, is it would disrupt a lot of airflow. The most modern engines have massive fan diameters.
This could be rather bulky to place in the vertical stabiliser. A solution would be to have the engine situated in the bowels of the aircraft (below the stabiliser) with side or upper mounted air intakes (similar to most fighter jets).
By: - 4th January 2013 at 06:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...or a 'pelican' v-tail where each stabilizer is mounted laterally to the engine nacelle...
By: - 4th January 2013 at 12:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Essentially there are two major issues with this arrangement, firstly positioning of the engine, and secondly, redundancy, there is none. Pretty much any twin can limp home on one engine, but not with 0!
By: - 4th January 2013 at 17:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Very true.
Engine makers would have to make a 100% reliable engine, which, of course, is not possible.
Posts: 445
By: Italy - 27th December 2012 at 23:32
for example instead of an Embraer E jet powered by two GE CF34-8E turbofans, it is powered by one Pratt & Whitney PW2000 or something like that.. either through a tail mounted engine like the MD-11 or Trijet, or with side air intakes that go towards the back.
i know in the past it was not possible due to redundancy needs, but also in the past twin engined aircraft were limited to what they could do until improvements in their reliability allowed more operational freedom of twinjets and the new crop of single engined bizjets coming out.